No, I get the shattered feeling because they are all uniformly confused. I just don't feel like I am looking at a whole drawing, rather than a peice of something mostly hidden and broken. Out of curiosity: what do you think of when you draw these? What is your goal to show the viewer?
The second, fourth, and fifth ones are the most incomplete by far, and I definitely see where you're coming from with the fourth one. The second and fifth ones, despite being so incomplete, still give off a sort of mood. The fourth is completely neutral, though. I don't plan on stopping, thanks! I like to try and have my pieces be just that, a piece of something larger, so I'm glad they seem to have that quality. I don't necessarily think when a draw these - at least not in the literal sense. I usually start off with a vague idea in my head; a shape, a mood, a focus, a meaning, etc. From there, I just draw, and I do whatever feels 'right.' The goal is entirely dependent upon the image; some are meant to convey an idea or emotion, others are just experiments.
Your new sketches are nice. The first one immediately looked like a sci-fi concept, it reminded me of the forerunner structures on the cover of Cryptum. But there is a lot of negative space, which looks planned, are you going to add anymore focal points? Also, is there a concept? 2, 3, and 4, definitely give off a segmented feeling. 2 depicts neural pathways, 3 depicts AI, 4 depicts something like blood in zero-G or alternatively a virus distorting the bloodstream. Of course, these are my own interpretations. Number 5 depicts, to me, something like a tree in a dark alien wood. Sort of like skeleton trees in a desert. It reminds me of the abstract worlds from the artist David Firth, mind you I haven't looked at his work in a long time. I'm drawn to 1 and 3, maybe because my interpretations categorized them as sci-fi-esque. Anyways, I'm glad to see you posted some more. I also hope my interpretations didn't attach any negative connotations for you. I just thought I'd share my thoughts. I want to see a new, completed, work from you. But thank you for sharing, regardless.
Depends on the image. Comprehension took months to complete, although I worked on it off-and-on during that time. All of what you see on the third sketch was done in a day; a couple hours at the most. Proof of Existence was also a multi-month project, while Night Sky was done in one or two days. I love to hear interpretations, since they usually reveal a lot about the person giving them, and they're very helpful references if I'm trying to convey a certain concept or emotion. 1 is technically complete, and the negative space is definitely purposeful, but I was never satisfied with it, and didn't know what to add without taking away from the atmosphere. I'm continuing to work on 3, so you'll probably see a newer version of that sometime in the future. Thanks for the feedback, it's always appreciated.
Origins is nice, though nothing I didn't expect from you. mechanism is awkward to me, though. It seems to have both a shapless 3D figure, and a 2D figure. The two are so contrasting that they have nothing in common from what i see, and therefor the whole piece (seeing as it is only those 2 objects) seems off. The 3D object doesnt seem to take on any shape, and then only makes me wonder what I'm supposed to see. I think i like the idea behind this one, but its execution just doesn't do it for me. On the bright side, it is placed well, to the lower left like that, and is balanced pretty well (though the right side of the page is notably weaker).
Very nice Kuda. I'm not good at drawing and don't know anything about it so, I can't provide CC, but these look very nice. Can't wait to see more.
Night sky is amazing I really like the whole cellular thing you've got going on in some of you work gives a real sense that its all part of something far greater and gives it an air of mystery.
Thanks Munchie, that means a lot. With how much positive reception Night Sky has gotten, I've considered redoing it on a very large canvas, fixing up the curves, improving the star-fields, adding more detail in the gap between, etc. Comprehension is the spiritual successor to it, but the two are different in effect, I'm finding.
Which texture? The background, the circle, or the fork-thing? Ya know, I'm considering doing a higher quality version of Night Sky since people seem to like that one especially. Something with better stars, a better central texture, etc. etc.
The small circles feel strangely flat compared to the larger, more fluid shapes. Me @ details: WHY ARE YOU SO GOOD AT THIS?
This is looking good, though I have to agree with SpinCycle, the small circles feel a bit flat (Or is that the point?)
I think the flatness comes from the fact that there seems to be no light hitting the small details. Add some and profit.